The "parameters" of the tests

Since we have decided to check all this media formats compatibility tests by ourselves, in
the following we describe how we chose the major parameters of the tests.
These certainly include the hardware used for recording, the players
for reading the discs, and, of course, the discs themselves, which after all are those about which all this conversation is taking place.

Players

We used 27 stand alone DVD players (of which 2 were also used as recorders) and 20 DVD-ROM
PC readers (of which 3 were also used as recorders). Among those 20 DVD-ROM readers, there were also a few recorders, which were used solely as readers in our tests. These where all those drives available to us through the European market
and we have been gathering them for over a year now. All the drives used were
absolutely new, except some DVD-ROM's we had previously tested for presenting
reviews in our web site. Even the latter had been kept out of use until the
time of testing and were thus almost-new.

In the following 2 tables the reader can see the exact manufacturer and model used for doing our tests. The first table contains the stand-alone units, the second the PC DVD drives.

Stand alone DVD players.

Some of them are also able to record and 3 of them were used as recorders as well. (See relevant table below.)

Standalone Players

TOSHIBA SD-125E

LG DVD5253

PANASONIC DVD-RA 82

PANASONIC DVD-XV10

PHILIPS DVD 723

PHILIPS DVD 890

PHILIPS DVD-640

PIONEER DV-550

PIONEER DVD 7000

SAMSUNG DVD-S224

SONY DVP-F25

AIWA XD-DV370

FirstLine FLAVIO

KENWOOD DVF-3530

LG DVD 4710

PANASONIC DVD-RV32

PHILIPS DVD 733

PIONEER DV-343

PIONEER DV-656A

SAMSUNG DVD-127

SONY DVP-NS305

SONY DVP-NS705V

SONY DVP-PQ1

THOMSON DTH210

TOSHIBA SD-214E

TOSHIBA SD-220E

YAMAHA DVD-S520

PC DVD-ROM Players

PC DVD-ROM Players

AOPEN DVD1648

AOPEN RW125A

BTC BDV 316B

LITEON LTD-163

LITEON XJ-HD165H

MITSUMI DW7801

PHILIPS RW 228

PIONEER DCR-111

PIONEER DVD -105S2

PIONEER DVD -106S2

PIONEER DVD -A05

PIONEER DVD 500M

PIONEER DVD-U05S

PLEXTOR PX-320A

RICOH MP 5125

SONY DRX-500U1

TEAC DV-516E

TOSHIBA SD-R1202

WAILE SFINX 16

WAITEC XFILE

In all cases the most recent firmwares were downloaded or otherwise acquired. Each drive tested had the latest firmware and thus the best performance in terms of writing/reading quality and compatibility with respect to the latest discs on the market.

The recorders

We used as recorders 2 stand alone units and 3 PC drives. In each case we recorded at the maximum speed all types of supported media. In one case (Sony) we recorded media of both formats, since this was supported.

Recorders

Pioneer A05

Pioneer DVR7000

Philips DVDR890

HP dvd 300i

Sony DRX-500UL

Our choice here was based on arguments explained in the previous section. We had to include certainly the major drives from both camp "leaders". Since Ricoh 4x +R/RW recorder was not available when we designed the roadmap of our tests and as its 4x +R media were very scare at that time, we did not include Ricoh drives or media in our tests. We did not include a 4x Philips recorder either, because there is currently no such drive available in the market.

Having said this, we must point out that all major component manufacturers were represented in our tests. The NEC recorder is the same as the HP drive we used in our tests. Based on all those things we have learned over the time by performing exhaustive hardware tests, there is very little difference between drives based on the same hardware components. From this point of view adding or removing drives from the particular list we chose, would have only a marginal impact on the outcome of our tests. (Although would have probably lengthen unacceptably the required time to conduct them!)

The Media

Having selected the recording units as explained previously, we
had to choose the respective media according to similar arguments. One media
manufacturer had to be the one suggested by the unit manufacturer itself. We
thus chose the types of media that are usually being shipped along with the units. In the case of -R/RW recorders, these were the Pioneer discs. In the case, however, of Philips, as 4x +R/ 2.4x +RW media were generally unavailable to us, we chose Verbatim discs which is, nonetheless, the OEM.

We also came under the requirement of a finite amount of time that we could
spend on doing the tests. Obviously, we had to use the same exactly persons for doing
all the tests. They had to be among our "crew" and be skilful enough
to catch quickly and easily each drive's idiosyncrasies and write down clearly the
outcome of each test. Each additional media manufacturer would add (27 + 20)
x 6 = 282 more tests to be carried out. Having to choose among the perfect
and feasible we decided to include only one additional disc manufacturer. It
should be one with the greatest market share and among those offering discs
of both types and at the maximum recorded speeds.

In both cases the media we chose as a third option was Maxell.
A close alternative was to use TDK. But after gathering whatever TDK disc we were able to
find in the European market, we soon came at a dead end: We could not find
any 4x +R media! (Having done some more informal tests since our original deadline,
we can assure our readers that there would be hardly a difference even if we
were lucky enough to get the full arsenal of TDK discs.)

Summing up we used:

Media

Pioneer DVD-R 4x

Pioneer DVD-RW 2x

Maxell DVD-R 4x

Maxell DVD-RW 2x

Verbatim DVD+R 4x

Verbatim DVD+RW 2.4x

Maxell DVD+R 4x

Maxell DVD+RW 2.4x

In the case of dual format capable recorders (Sony DRX-500UL) we used, of course, all 8 combinations of the chosen discs.

The speed

We burned all discs in the maximum available speed by each drive. This was done for the following reasons. Each particular drive is factory calibrated to record best at this speed. This is a major factor, as we want to test what is in general the best offer by both camps under the rationale that we should try to minimize the number of reasons causing incompatibilities with older players. Had we chose otherwise, we would both face a much larger number of tests and the possibility of testing something that most of our readers would never use in practice.